Conlang Random Thread

[Zju]

I'm not sure there has been a study on this, and either way it'll be skewed towards the well documented languages of today.

[bradrn]

The Surrey Suppletion Database may be of use: it lists 30 entries for ‘BE’, though I’m not going to bother tallying up the various conditions.

[spindlestar]

! what a cool source, thank you!

[Richard W]

in your experience am i accurate in thinking that suppletive be-forms tend to happen most frequently on the third person?

Having looked at the Surrey database, I think the driver is a tendency to omit the copula plus a tendency for 1st and 2nd person endings to not be redundant. The Surrey database doesn't give examples from many languages; several languages get multiple lookup results.

[Ahzoh]

I still haven't yet figured out reasons why a language might have separate irrealis markers depending on whether the verb is dynamic or stative.

Still, what I have come up with is very much like the Pama-Ngungan languages which also verb conjugation classes.

I have also determined that classes 2 and 3 are older than class 1 and that newer roots take the class 1 ablaut behavior while older roots take the class 2 and 3 ones.

The derived stems (e.g. causative and applicative stems) may also be only class 1

[keenir]

I still haven't yet figured out reasons why a language might have separate irrealis markers depending on whether the verb is dynamic or stative.

Other than "because it does"?

Still, what I have come up with is very much like the Pama-Ngungan languages which also verb conjugation classes.

cool

[Creyeditor]

I still haven't yet figured out reasons why a language might have separate irrealis markers depending on whether the verb is dynamic or stative.

This is a tough one. How about the following diachronic pathway: You start with two future markers. They derive from a change of state verb ('to become') for stative verbs and from a motion verb ('to go') for dynamic verbs, because they have slightly different sematics, e.g. 'I will turn green' vs. 'I will swim.'. The future markers then both change to irrealis markers but keep the formal distinction between the stative irrealis and the dynamic irrealis even though there is no semantic difference left. I think the individual steps all make sense in isolation even though the result is slightly opaque.

[Ahzoh]

I still haven't yet figured out reasons why a language might have separate irrealis markers depending on whether the verb is dynamic or stative.

This is a tough one. How about the following diachronic pathway: You start with two future markers. They derive from a change of state verb ('to become') for stative verbs and from a motion verb ('to go') for dynamic verbs, because they have slightly different sematics, e.g. 'I will turn green' vs. 'I will swim.'. The future markers then both change to irrealis markers but keep the formal distinction between the stative irrealis and the dynamic irrealis even though there is no semantic difference left. I think the individual steps all make sense in isolation even though the result is slightly opaque.

I think it can work, especially since dynamic verbs in the nonfuture/realis behave with perfective/completive force while stative verbs in the nonfuture/realis behave with imperfective/incompletive force.

Though, I have heard of primarily mood-marking languages becoming primarily tense-marking (just as primarily aspect-marking have) but I've not heard of the opposite.

Maybe I could use more modal verbs instead, like "want". I could see a verb like "want" turning into an irrealis marker, just as "will" has become a future marker (there is usually strong overlap between modality and futurity). Yes, i think it makes sense to have one verb that involves modality regarding a state while another verb involves modality regarding an act, perhaps with some element of volition.

But what sorts of modal concepts are those? Is a desirative mood more stative-coded or more dynamic-coded? Is wanting a state? Or is it a more active process? Well now I'm just getting philosophical.

[Ahzoh]

I am thinking of making my conlang's geminate stem indicate pluractionality, but it is a foreign concept and one I don't know how to use well. Also since the other derived stems won't have a pluractional form, it makes me think that the pluractional should be a derived stem and not an inflectional one. But pluractionality does not lend itself well to being a form of lexical derivation since its semantic meaning is inconsistent and constantly shifting depending on the number and type of participants. Though that didn't stop languages like Ancient Egyptian from having pluractional infinitives somehow.

still, I like the idea of having things like army go\SGAC-3p "the army travels together, at once, as a unit" vs army go\PLAC-3p "the army disperses (as if demoralized)"

But how can it be a derived thing and not simply inflection like TAM and grammatical number when the same form substantially changes with a singular subject: I go\PLAC-1s "I go to and fro, I pace"

[bradrn]

I am thinking of making my conlang's geminate stem indicate pluractionality, but it is a foreign concept and one I don't know how to use well.

This is an interesting topic. I recommend starting with Ephraim’s posts here and here, and the references therein. What you describe sounds more like distributivity than pluractionality, so the reference I particularly recommend is Henderson’s Pluractionality and Distributivity.

[Ahzoh]

I am thinking of making my conlang's geminate stem indicate pluractionality, but it is a foreign concept and one I don't know how to use well.

This is an interesting topic. I recommend starting with Ephraim’s posts here and here, and the references therein. What you describe sounds more like distributivity than pluractionality, so the reference I particularly recommend is Henderson’s Pluractionality and Distributivity.

Distributivity is only one manifestation of pluractionality, but it's not the same as dedicated distributivity.

Basically, at its core it seems to be like so:

if verb is intransitive:
(single subject) = iterative, frequentive
(plural subject) = distributive

if verb is transitive:
(single object) = iterative, frequentive
(plural object) = distributive

The whole theme is that the action itself is plural independent of the number of its participants, whether it's done by one subject, many subjects, done on one object or done to multiple objects. The same action happens many times.

Beyond that, there is sometimes also the implication of intensity or completeness. One such ancient Egyptian sample talks about "Geb opening totally his two jaws" where "open" is in the pluractional inflection.

---

Anyways, I basically deciding on one of two possibilities:
D-stem is factitive or pluractional
S-stem is causative, instrumental
M-stem is benefactive, associative

D-stem is factitive or causative
S-stem is benefactive, substitutive
M-stem is associative

kemē-ti "we get up at once"
kemmē-ti "we get up individually"
sekmē-ti "we raise [them] up"
mekmē-ti "we get up for [them], we give [them] a standing ovation

kemē-ti "we get up"
kemmē-ti "we raise [them] up"
sekmē-ti "we get up for [them], we give [them] a standing ovation
mekmē-ti "we ???"

[bradrn]

Distributivity is only one manifestation of pluractionality, but it's not the same as dedicated distributivity.

Basically, at its core it seems to be like so:

if verb is intransitive:
(single subject) = iterative, frequentive
(plural subject) = distributive

if verb is transitive:
(single object) = iterative, frequentive
(plural object) = distributive

This is an enormous oversimplification. ‘Iterative’, ‘frequentive’ and ‘distributive’ are all ambiguous terms which get used in a variety of different ways (often overlapping with each other). Again, I strongly recommend reading those links, which more carefully distinguish the various ways in which events can be repeated or distributed.

Beyond that, there is sometimes also the implication of completeness. One such ancient Egyptian sample talks about "Geb opening totally his two jaws" where "open" is in the pluractional inflection.

If the basic meaning of a marker is completeness, I wouldn’t call it a pluractional.

(Also, Egyptological terminology tends to be old and somewhat strange, and different in usage to modern linguistic terms.)

[Ahzoh]

Distributivity is only one manifestation of pluractionality, but it's not the same as dedicated distributivity.

Basically, at its core it seems to be like so:

if verb is intransitive:
(single subject) = iterative, frequentive
(plural subject) = distributive

if verb is transitive:
(single object) = iterative, frequentive
(plural object) = distributive

This is an enormous oversimplification. ‘Iterative’, ‘frequentive’ and ‘distributive’ are all ambiguous terms which get used in a variety of different ways (often overlapping with each other). Again, I strongly recommend reading those links, which more carefully distinguish the various ways in which events can be repeated or distributed.

Somehow you're missing the point and getting granular on terminology despite the overall idea being very very clear regardless of the terminology. Maybe you should yourself (re)read the thread you linked since it basically already agrees with how I understand it and how I'm describing it.

Don't mean to be snarky, but I'm frustrated by talking about things that don't need to be said. I've been conlanging for 10+ years, I know very well the ambiguity and flexibility of terminology. And I think we all agree that pluractionality is about an action itself being plural, and that results in all sorts of different semantic (aspectual) manifestations.

Beyond that, there is sometimes also the implication of completeness. One such ancient Egyptian sample talks about "Geb opening totally his two jaws" where "open" is in the pluractional inflection.

If the basic meaning of a marker is completeness, I wouldn’t call it a pluractional.

Well no, it's not the basic meaning, the basic meaning is a plurality of action. Completeness is just one manifestation of that.

[Ahzoh]

The plurality of events may be distributed over a single occasion or multiple occasion, over a single location or multiple locations, over a single participant or multiple participants, over a single type of partipant or a variety of participants etc.

This sort of inconsistent semantic chaos does not seem to me to lend itself well to lexification (i.e. turned into nonfinite verb form or into a deverbative) without one or more aspects of the action being made consistent, such as not changing semantics based on number of participants. That is, if go\PLAC-1sg is "I pace back and forth" then go\PLAC-1p should be "we [each/together] pace back and forth" and not "we disperse, we each go our separate ways".

I suppose there is the possibility of colexified manifestations, such as go\PLAC-1p meaning both "we [each/together] paced back and forth" and "we disperse, we each go our separate ways"

[bradrn]

The plurality of events may be distributed over a single occasion or multiple occasion, over a single location or multiple locations, over a single participant or multiple participants, over a single type of partipant or a variety of participants etc.

This sort of inconsistent semantic chaos does not seem to me to lend itself well to lexification without one or more aspects of the action being made consistent. I.e. not changing semantics based on number of participants. That is if go\PLAC-1sg is "I pace back and forth" then go\PLAC-1p should be "we [each/together] pace back and forth" and not "we disperse, we each go our separate ways".

The whole point is that no language has a single form covering all these meanings. That would be ‘chaos’ indeed!

Instead, each pluractional form tends to select a certain subset of those domains, such that it can be applied consistently to a large range of verbs. If there are two or more pluractional forms, they will each have different semantics. Linguists invented terms like ‘iterative’ and ‘frequentive’ to describe such situations, but every language differs in the precise range of its pluractional forms, so such terms are very difficult to use meaningfully. This is why I prefer to describe pluractional forms in terms of these basic meanings, rather than using the traditional terminology.

[Ahzoh]

The whole point is that no language has a single form covering all these meanings. That would be ‘chaos’ indeed!

Ancient Egyptian sorta does

[bradrn]

The whole point is that no language has a single form covering all these meanings. That would be ‘chaos’ indeed!

Ancient Egyptian sorta does

This page doesn’t seem to be working for me.

[Ahzoh]

The whole point is that no language has a single form covering all these meanings. That would be ‘chaos’ indeed!

Ancient Egyptian sorta does

This page doesn’t seem to be working for me.

Well, luckily, I have made a screenshot as well.

Well frankly, it now make sense why the D-stem in Arabic is intensive in meaning while the D-stem in Tigrinya is frequentative. It is all just each language making a choice on what specific manifestation of action plurality the form indicates.

That also kind of makes it boring.

[bradrn]

Well, luckily, I have made a screenshot as well.

Thanks! From what I can see in that screenshot, it hardly seems to cover the full range of meanings: using Ephraim’s terminology, it seems that the Egyptian pluractional mostly represents repetition within a single scenario (or secondarily distributivity or intensitivity).

(I also had a look in my Egyptian resources, but it seems that none of mine use the term ‘pluractional’, or when they do they don’t fully describe it.)

Well frankly, it now make sense why the D-stem in Arabic is intensive in meaning while the D-stem in Tigrinya is frequentative. It is all just each language making a choice on what specific manifestation of plurality the form indicates.

Precisely!

(Though note that they might not necessarily have very different manifestations of plurality: it could be that the linguist studying Tigrinya simply chose to label it with a different word than that chosen by the linguist studying Arabic. This kind of thing happens annoyingly often, and the only sure way of detecting it is to find a sufficiently good description of the languages in question.)

That also makes kind of makes it boring.

Really? In my opinion, this makes it far more engaging. Sure, there’s a certain amount of interest in creating a morphological process and labelling it ‘iterative’ or ‘frequentive’… but it’s much more fun to have a whole semantic space to play around in, in which I can work out a way of expressing meanings which makes my language unique.

[keenir]

Don't mean to be snarky, but I'm frustrated by talking about things that don't need to be said. I've been conlanging for 10+ years, I know very well the ambiguity and flexibility of terminology. And I think we all agree that pluractionality is about an action itself being plural, and that results in all sorts of different semantic (aspectual) manifestations.

If the basic meaning of a marker is completeness, I wouldn’t call it a pluractional.

Well no, it's not the basic meaning, the basic meaning is a plurality of action. Completeness is just one manifestation of that.

didn't Creyeditor just explain this to you and I? its the number of events, not about number of the arguments.